Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com> writes:
> 2018-04-16 13:08+0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov:
>> Implement HvFlushVirtualAddress{List,Space} hypercalls in a simplistic way:
>> do full TLB flush with KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH and kick vCPUs which are currently
>> IN_GUEST_MODE.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuzn...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
>> @@ -1242,6 +1242,65 @@ int kvm_hv_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
>> msr, u64 *pdata)
>> return kvm_hv_get_msr(vcpu, msr, pdata);
>> }
>>
>> +static void ack_flush(void *_completed)
>> +{
>> +}
>> +
>> +static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *current_vcpu, u64 ingpa,
>> + u16 rep_cnt)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm *kvm = current_vcpu->kvm;
>> + struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_current = ¤t_vcpu->arch.hyperv;
>> + struct hv_tlb_flush flush;
>> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>> + int i, cpu, me;
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, ingpa, &flush, sizeof(flush))))
>> + return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>> +
>> + trace_kvm_hv_flush_tlb(flush.processor_mask, flush.address_space,
>> + flush.flags);
>> +
>> + cpumask_clear(&hv_current->tlb_lush);
>> +
>> + me = get_cpu();
>> +
>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>> + struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv = &vcpu->arch.hyperv;
>> +
>> + if (!(flush.flags & HV_FLUSH_ALL_PROCESSORS) &&
>
> Please add a check to prevent undefined behavior in C:
>
> (hv->vp_index >= 64 ||
>
>> + !(flush.processor_mask & BIT_ULL(hv->vp_index)))
>> + continue;
>
> It would also fail in the wild as shl only considers the bottom 5 bits.
>
>> + /*
>> + * vcpu->arch.cr3 may not be up-to-date for running vCPUs so we
>> + * can't analyze it here, flush TLB regardless of the specified
>> + * address space.
>> + */
>> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * It is possible that vCPU will migrate and we will kick wrong
>> + * CPU but vCPU's TLB will anyway be flushed upon migration as
>> + * we already made KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH request.
>> + */
>> + cpu = vcpu->cpu;
>> + if (cpu != -1 && cpu != me && cpu_online(cpu) &&
>> + kvm_arch_vcpu_should_kick(vcpu))
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &hv_current->tlb_lush);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!cpumask_empty(&hv_current->tlb_lush))
>> + smp_call_function_many(&hv_current->tlb_lush, ack_flush,
>> + NULL, true);
>
> Hm, quite a lot of code duplication with EX hypercall and also
> kvm_make_all_cpus_request ... I'm thinking about making something like
>
> kvm_make_some_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req,
> bool (*predicate)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu))
>
> or to implement a vp_index -> vcpu mapping and using
>
> kvm_vcpu_request_mask(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req, long *vcpu_bitmap)
>
> The latter would probably simplify logic of the EX hypercall.
>
> What do you think?
Makes sense, I'll take a look. Thanks!
--
Vitaly
